"Discovery (observations)- form acts of detecting and learning something. Discovery observations are acts in which something is found and given a productive insight. Serendipity is the effect by which one accidentally discovers something fortunate, especially while looking for something else entirely."
So which is it? Is my life Discovery or Serendipity. I am leaning towards Serendipity. How can you discover something if you have to find it? How can you have a productive insight on something if you haven't discovered it? It seems like discovery happens through serendipity. But does serendipity really have to be something you discover that is fortunate? I don't believe so. I think you can discover something unfortunate while looking for something else that could actually be fortunate. For example-- you are a lawyer trying a homicide case. You find the dead body, but with the murder weapon. Serendipity! Maybe thats something different. My point is, the act of detecting and learning something really can't be accomplished by discovery, as discovery is really the end result of serendipity. Who gives a fuck? Me, for one reason in particular. Because this life is all about discovering things. Life is one big investigation into why we are here. But how can we ever truly know? Human beings are, at their core, nosy as hell. Who doesn't look whenever there is a car wreck or a bunch of police cars in front of a house? We all do because we are curious, we like to know what's going on. But how are we supposed to know what's going on unless we discover things. And how are we supposed to discover things without serendipity? The phrase shit happens seems appropriate. I guess my real point is this, discovery is always accidental. Whether or not it is a fortunate discovery or not is somewhat a mute point. We are all compelled by chaos. This is probably why I am so attracted to the chaos theory, may be why I love chaos so much.
"In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
Then why is it when I read this I get the distinct impression that the Chaos Theory is that chaos is not random at all? If the behavior of these chaotic systems appear random, why are no random elements involved? Deterministic chaos sounds strange, like an oxymoron. Interestingly, my theory on discovery seems to be disqualified by the chaos theory. If all chaos is determined by it's initial conditions does that truly make it chaos? Assuming that the initial condition is attempting discovery, does that make discovery one of the behaviors of the chaotic system? Maybe discovery is compelled by chaos. It makes sense, would anything new ever be discovered if we, as a society, weren't open to chaos and change? Development is dependent on chaos and yet we all fight it so much.
I say, let it be. My life is already run through chaos, whether I like it or not. I certainly learn things, but does it impede my progress? Does embracing chaos lead ultimately to sadness? If nothing is ever certain, how can one discover happiness? I am not convinced that there is no happiness in chaos, although chaos has a sad connotation to it. Why is that? Is a question the initial condition of chaos? Does my deterministic question initiate the chaos in my mind, sending it in all directions until, aha! Serendipitous discovery!!!
Perhaps I knew the answer all along.
Posts
